Tuesday, July 1, 2008

"A military strike would in my opinion be worse than anything else ... Itwould transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire."

Scary scary vibes form UN's chief Nuke cat at the IAEA in a recent interview with Al Arabiya TV. While Dr El-Baradei's bona fides fronting International Agencies is well known - yet how authentic are his psychic abilities?

And exactly why is he transforming into a prophet? Shouldn't he be like proving beyond a shadow of a doubt whether Persia is oath breaking on International Treaties brokered in good faith?

If proving Iran is safe as milk why all the 'Fireball" jazz?

Even worse - if Iran is indeed oath breaking then why would such an august bearucrat suck up to an international outcast regime that are enrichenly industriously breaking oaths he is supposed to defend?

Would Iran attack Israel with rockets, inviting retaliation with Jerichoand cruise missiles from Israeli submarines? Would she close the Gulf with suicide-boat attacks on tankers and U.S. warships?

With oil at $135 a barrel, Israeli air strikes on Iran would seem to ensure a 2,000-point drop in the Dow and a world recession.

What would Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria do? All three are now in indirect negotiations with Israel. U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq could be made by Iran to pay a high price in blood that could force the United States to initiate its own air war in retaliation, and to finish a war Israel had begun."

That kind of quizing is a lot like easing into a hot bubble bath after a super fun day of horsebacking, swimming and a trek to the Mall. Old school gradual escalation thinking.

"Ball of Fire" is totally new school.

The ME stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean - about 25 diff nations, fiefdoms, kindoms and by happy chance - Great Satan's Central Command.

Would the Land of the Pure hop into "Ball of Fire"? Facing down Talibanistanis' on one side and checking for India over their shoulder - it could be said Pakistan is fully booked.

Or Algeria and Turkey? Outraged by Khomeinist Iran's suddenly rendered retarded nuke chicanery wise? A wicki smack on a regime that buddied up with T groups that tormented both for ages, really drive them batty?

Unsexy, unfree Basharopolis - totally secular - may decide to hold up on Operation "Ball of Fire" choosing to sit this one out. The regimes survival would be at stake including personal assets. Dead mullahs don't donate.

A case could be made that a Comprehensive Strike that killed off the regime - or at the least wounded it to death could totally deploy the most awesome of all regime changes - from the inside out. Iranians may not be such affectionados for self inflicted misery on behalf of a regime that fields a Fashion Posse, Secret Police and even voltigeur religious police. Most of the pop is actually quite young - 80% under 40 yo and are experts on how uncool, unfree Supreme Leaders and their tripod support fan club and co operating/competing clubs hang.

"Transform the Middle East into a Ball of Fire"

Maybe that should read "Transform the Mullahs Regime into a Ball of Fire.

7
comments:

It is strange the Great Satan's head of military is visiting Little Satan's head of military again. The second time in 6 months. And I don't think it is to join in the weekly poker game on Wednesday nights. What could those 2 be planning?

Iran has been itching for a fight with the Great Satan ever since 1979.

And for a time they had their Revolutionary Guards try and start something with Great Satan's powerful Navy in the Gulf. Too bad they didn't succeed. They would be a mute point now.

This is the same crowd that looks to Al Gore for knowledge and wisdom regarding global warming.

Now, we get more incredible logic from the U.N. Standing up to a dangerous gang of thugs with nuclear ambitions will turn the M.E. into a fireball. Therefore, it is best to appease them. Does the U.N. have any idea who wants the M.E. to be turned into a fireball? Has the U.N. ever heard of "the man of a thousand bullets?" Does the U.N. have any idea of the fanaticism held by Iran's leaders? Do they have any idea what Imam Mahdi represents?

The stupidity of the U.N. will turn the M.E. into a fireball. Make no mistake about that.

I've heard two 'experts' in the past couple of days state that they think Israel will strike between election day in Nov and inauguration day in Jan 09. It's hard right now to tell how much is paranoid hand wringing and truth. It's also not good to believe, whole cloth, the likes of Seymour Hersch, spouting off in half truths. And, the usual administration bashing.

El-Baradei is very strange. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, never giving the same predictions about Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I remember before Chad closed down In The Bullpen blog, he had contact with a 'source' who had some very negative things about El-Baradei and his true motives. I don't trust El-Baradei/

On Iran's 'people', I think you are correct. If we could play a game, take away Iran's leaders, take away Iran's mullahs, and leave the people... I think it would be a fantastic new country in the region.

"On Iran's 'people', I think you are correct. If we could play a game, take away Iran's leaders, take away Iran's mullahs, and leave the people... I think it would be a fantastic new country in the region."

That is an interesting fantasy, Debbie. Were if it were so.

But the fact is that those thugs get a lot of support for their base for the same reasons that conservatives and liberals stand by their people in power, even when they are clearly morons and/or assholes. They look upon their morons and assholes with as similar kind of drooling hero-worship that we do here. It's a sad fact of life in authoritarian regimes (it's a sad fact in liberal democracies; we just do a better job of having a more open and engaged debate and discussion which makes hero-worship much more difficult). But it just is.

Are we going to be greeting as liberators, again, you think?:):) I'm sure that's exactly what the Iranians are thinking right at this very moment:). "I sure wish those great and virtuous Americans would come and rescue us from the Iranian government that quite a few of us voted for and who hate so much, much more than those sweet, caring, kind Americans."

I'm sure that's what they're thinking, right now. In fact, if I needed to make a case for that line of thinking, I'm sure I could come up with intelligence to buttress that case, whether or not the intelligence actually says that or not. That's the brilliance, really, of having opinions that I just really, really believe are true even if facts on the ground contradict that case.

Here's what historically happens. We try to take out such folks by illiberal and undemocratic means (in this case, we overtly violate a democratic process in a sovereign ostensibly, though clearly very bullshit, as well, democratic process).

They, rightly, resent that we take out leaders that we elected or that we, at least, identify with as our own against the arrogant invasions and intrusions of outsiders. They elect (or, in the case of terrorist groups with popular support, they appoint) people with more hatred and muscle, nuclear weapons, for instance, and the process begins anew.

How does everyone think that Robert Mugabe still polls as much support as he does? Doesn't anyone wonder why such a bloody, repressive dictatorship still polls near-pluralities? Much of that, of course, is explained by fear of repression and his winning another election. But an awful lot of it is explained by the effectiveness of his propaganda campaigns that promise that he is the leader to protect his country from the incursions of, in Zimbabwe's case, Great Britain (in Iran's case, it would clearly be America) and the West.

That's why smart people are not rushing into some damn fool discussion of invading Zimbabwe. Because they know better that such fears are exactly what have kept Mugabe in power and that kind of fool is exactly the kind of thug that they will elect, again, given that we prove Mugabe right.

Ahmadinejad plays a similar game in Iran. And then we confirm those fears with dumbass invasion plans (plans that will never see the light of day; if someone strikes those facilities, they better be prepared to take responsibility for the fallout, because it will crystal clear, at that point, post-Iraq, what damned fools are running the show and, if they won't, they will be booted), and, after all of the domestic fallout in the United States and Western countries from that nonsense, then Iranian support for another hardliner is emboldened and they elect another asshole, except uglier and meaner and one who hates America more.

I have to say that people who reason along the lines of invasion should seriously consider careers in recruiting Muslims in the Middle East to terrorist organizations and to the defense of theocratic and thuggish dictators. Because that line of reasoning will take you far in that field.

But, hey, more Israelis and Americans die, you know, what the hell? They gotta die sometime, huh?

Might as well be at the other end of a suicide bomber emboldened in his/her commitment to protect his/her country from American and Western invaders.

Can't think of a better plan, really. Except for maybe give Iran the bomb. That's another option to consider in that line of reasoning.

wHoA!

h0t!

~hEy Y"all! DoN"t MiSs GsGf~!

Guaranteed to magically transform subscribers into superior intellectuals, worldly, pious, witty, cool, fun to be with, irresistable, au courant and all together with it. Amaze friends, confound enemies and revel in the envy and righteous respect of peers.